Reply to comment

I've reached the end of Mayr, and after four lectures and two discussions, I still have yet to make any real sense of this new concept of science as a story.  After having firmly believed in the idea that science reaches fact, and there is only the slightest, absolute tiniest possibility that everything previously believed was wrong, I was comfortable in my definition of what science was, and what was meant to be a scientist. 

During last weeks discussion, we divided ourselves into groups of humanists, scientists, and social scientists.  Many of us had trouble identifying with one group, myself included. I think that this is an important predicament.  If we are only able to fall into one category, I feel we might become too set in our ways.  Take Mayr for example, he goes on and on about Darwin's individuality, how his forward thinking made his theories possible.  This is all very true, meanwhile Mayr is a strong example of a scientist gone wrong.  He falls into the trap of accepting theories such as evolution to be fact, no need to retest. 

 By being more flexible with how we academically define ourselves, we have the ability to think more freely about what we are studying.  Because each of the three disiplines can observe the same object of study from three different angles, if we ourselves can view a subject in this way, we might be able to think in a way that challenges what is allready considered to be truth, when it is merely, of course, "less wrong".